残字辨认测验的信度

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2017.01.016

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2017, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (1): 68-71.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2017.01.016

残字辨认测验的信度

卢利萍², 恽晓平², 桑德春²

1.中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院,a.综合康复科;
b.康复评定科,北京市 100068;
2.首都医科大学康复医学院,北京市 100068。

收稿日期:2016-07-25 出版日期:2017-01-20 发布日期:2017-02-17
作者简介:卢利萍(1983-),女,汉族,湖南浏阳市人,硕士,主治医师,主要研究方向：康复评定、神经康复。E-mail: lily2346@126.com。
基金资助:
国家科技部科技支撑计划项目(No.2008BAH26B04); 首都医学发展科研基金重点支持项目(No.2007-2071)

Reliability of Fragmented Character Identification Assessment

LU Li-ping², YUN Xiao-ping², SANG De-chun²

1. a. General Rehabilitation Department; b. Rehabilitation Evaluation Department, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China;
2. Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Beijing 100068, China

Received:2016-07-25 Published:2017-01-20 Online:2017-02-17
Contact: LU Li-ping. E-mail: lily2346@126.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨内隐记忆评定方法之一残字辨认测验的可靠性。方法分别对象形字和非象形字进行残化处理,产生两套残字辨认测验。2013年9月至2016年3月对78名健康中青年受试者进行残字辨认测验;用平行版本间隔14 d对其中20名受试者进行复本再测。计算内部一致性信度、重测信度及分半信度。结果象形字、非象形字内隐记忆启动效应无显著性差异(t=1.006, P>0.05)。象形字、非象形字残字辨认测验的Cronbach α系数分别为0.763和0.729,重测组内相关系数(ICC)分别为0.785和0.771,分半信度ICC分别为0.792和0.789。结论残字辨认测验具有满意的信度。

关键词: 内隐记忆, 残字辨认测验, 信度

Abstract: Objective To study the reliability of an implicit memory test–Fragmented Character Identification Assessment. Methods Some Chinese pictographic characters and non-pictographic characters were fragmented to form two sets of identification task. From September, 2013 to March, 2016, a total of 78 health young and middle aged people were assessed with the task, and 20 of them were assessed again with another parallel version 14 days later. The internal consistency, test-retest reliability and duplicate split-half reliability were analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in priming of implicit memory between pictograph and non-pictograph (t=1.006, P>0.05). Cronbach's α was 0.763 and 0.729 for the pictograph and non-pictograph fragmented character identification assessment, respectively; while the inter-class coefficients (ICC) of test-retest were 0.785 and 0.771, ICC of split-half reliability were 0.792 and 0.789. Conclusion The reliability is satisfactory in Chinese Fragmented Character Identification Assessment.

Key words: implicit memory, Fragmented Character Identification Assessment, reliability

中图分类号:

R493

卢利萍, 恽晓平, 桑德春. 残字辨认测验的信度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2017, 23(1): 68-71.

LU Li-ping, YUN Xiao-ping, SANG De-chun. Reliability of Fragmented Character Identification Assessment[J]. 《Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice》, 2017, 23(1): 68-71.

参考文献

[1] Graf P, Schacter DL. Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects [J]. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 1985, 11(3): 501-518.
[2] 卢利萍,恽晓平. 内隐记忆的测验方法及其理论基础[J]. 中国卒中杂志, 2009, 4(10): 843-849.
[3] 卢利萍,恽晓平. 脑损伤患者的知觉型启动效应的研究[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2011, 17(6): 519-522.
[4] 卢利萍,恽晓平,桑德春. 脑损伤患者的内隐记忆研究[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2012, 18(10): 948-950.
[5] 卢利萍,恽晓平,桑德春. 内隐记忆在记忆康复中的应用[J]. 中国医药指南, 2012, 10(4): 70-72.
[6] 张玉娜. 记忆的知觉干扰效应影响因素研究[J]. 吕梁教育学院学报, 2016, 33(1): 10-12.
[7] Gong L, Wang J, Yang X, et al. Dissociation between conceptual and perceptual implicit memory: evidence from Patients with frontal and occipital lobe lesions [J]. Front Hum Neurosci, 2016, 9: 722.
[8] Berry CJ, Kessels RP, Wester AJ, et al. A single-system model predicts recognition memory and repetition priming in amnesia [J]. J Neurosci, 2014, 34(33): 10963-10974.
[9] Monti JM, Cooke GE, Watson PD, et al. Relating hippocampus to relational memory processing across domains and delays [J]. J Cogn Neurosci, 2015, 27(2): 234-245.
[10] De Houwer J. A propositional model of implicit evaluation [J]. Soc Personal Psychol Compass, 2014, 8(7): 342-353.
[11] Hayes SM, Fortier CB, Levine A, et al. Implicit memory in Korsakoff's syndrome: a review of procedural learning and priming studies [J]. Neuropsychol Rev, 2012, 22(2): 132-153.
[12] 徐扬,恽晓平. 脑损伤患者语义启动效应的研究[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2007, 13(10): 904-906.
[13] Snodgrass JG, Smith B, Feenan K. Fragmenting pictures on the Apple Macintosh computer for experimental and clinical applications [J]. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput, 1987, 19(2): 270-274.
[14] Ward EV, Berry CJ, Shanks DR. Age effects on explicit and implicit memory [J]. Front Psychol, 2013, 4: 639.
[15] Schuchard J, Thompson CK. Implicit and explicit learning in individuals with agrammatic aphasia [J]. J Psycholinguist Res, 2014, 43(3): 209-224.
[16] Rinck M, Becker ES. A Comparison of attentional biases and memory biases in women with social phobia and major depression [J]. J Abnorm Psychol, 2005, 114(1): 62-74.
[17] Prull MW, Lawless C, Marshall HM, et al. Effects of divided attention at retrieval on conceptual implicit memory [J]. Front Psychol, 2016, 7: 5.
[18] Verfaelllie M, LaRocque KF, Keane MM. Intact implicit verbal relational memory in medial temporal lobe amnesia [J]. Neuropsychologia, 2012, 50(8): 2100-2106.
[19] Wang WC, Yonelinas AP. Familiarity is related to conceptual implicit memory: An examination of individual differences [J]. Psychon Bull Rev, 2012, 19(6): 1154-1164.
[20] Spaan PE, Raaijmakers JG, Jonker C. Early assessment of dementia: the contribution of different memory components [J]. Neuropsychology, 2005, 19(5): 629-640.
[21] Kawakubo Y, Rogers MA, Kasai K. Procedural memory predicts social skills in persons with schizophrenia [J]. J Nerv Ment Dis, 2006, 194(8): 625-627.
[22] 朱滢,王宏斌. 加工水平、回忆策略与不自觉记忆[J]. 心理学报, 1991, 3: 264-270.
[23] Clark RE, Squire LR. Classical conditioning and brain systems: the role of awareness [J]. Science, 1998, 280(5360): 77-81.
[24] Snodgrass JG, Feenan K. Priming effects in picture fragment completion: support for the perceptual closure hypothesis [J]. J Exp Psychol Gen, 1990, 119(3): 276-296.
[25] Salthouse TA, Toth JP, Hancock HE, et al. Controlled and automatic forms of memory and attention: process purity and the uniqueness of age-related influences [J]. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci, 1997, 52(5): 216-228.
[26] 徐扬, 恽晓平. 采用加工分离程序进行内隐记忆测验的信度研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2007, 15(3): 253-257.

残字辨认测验的信度

Reliability of Fragmented Character Identification Assessment

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	易琦峰, 黄卓尔, 杨国莉, 谢丽华, 谢胜锋, 吴小霞, 严谨. 在职医护人员呼吸康复培训知识需求问卷的编制及信度、效度检验[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(8): 985-992.
[2]	李俊毅, 陈泽华, 吴祖贵, 王毅, 李聪聪, 王帅, 陈伟健, 叶子璇, 沈星星, 向瑞安, 刘文刚, 许学猛. 超声回声强度评价膝骨关节炎患者股四头肌质量的信度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(6): 738-744.
[3]	邱晓, 凌骏麒, 从洋洋, 白玉龙. 3D扫描容积法评定上肢远端体积的信度和效度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(3): 364-367.
[4]	沈星星, 熊玉玲, 陈伟健, 李聪聪, 李俊毅, 王帅, 章家皓, 向瑞安, 陈佳浩, 刘文刚, 许学猛. 慢性颈痛患者颈肩部肌肉性能差异及其与疼痛、体质量指数的相关性[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(12): 1420-1428.
[5]	杨佳曼,王毅,毛志涛,刘通,范德辉. 足姿指数评价青少年特发性脊柱侧弯患者足部位置的信度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2022, 28(8): 909-913.
[6]	谭茗丹,冯锭瑶,陈曦,刘汉军,李咏雪. 中文版构音障碍影响程度量表对帕金森病患者的信度和效度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2022, 28(6): 696-703.
[7]	周兆雯,王翠,黄真. 周历活动规划中文版在社区中老年人执行功能评测中的信度和效度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2021, 27(6): 737-744.
[8]	吴炜,倪波业,施加加. 扩展Barthel指数在脑卒中患者中的信度与效度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2021, 27(3): 261-268.
[9]	郭亚雯,林蓓蕾,张振香,王永利,符博,齐琲. 工作能力支持量表(中文版)在就业年龄脑卒中患者中的信度和效度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(9): 1076-1082.
[10]	怀宝玉,王翠,黄真,高雅. 周历活动规划中文版在大学生执行功能评测中的信度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(3): 363-367.
[11]	张振香,丁春戈,张春慧,梅永霞,林蓓蕾,王少阳,叶森. 居家脑卒中患者护理分级评估指标体系的构建和信效度检验[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(3): 368-372.
[12]	陈泽华,叶翔凌,陈伟健,许学猛. 足姿指数评价足部位置的信效度研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(10): 1193-1197.
[13]	徐悦莹, 郑洁皎, 夏汶, 李勇, 徐国会, 段林茹, 曲冰, 邱卓英. 基于世界卫生组织残疾评定量表2.0慢性病患者整体功能的评估研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2019, 25(9): 993-999.
[14]	龚迪, 王惠芳, 刘晓晨, 胡浩宇, 郑依莉, 王雪强. 老年人腰椎位置觉重测信度研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2019, 25(4): 377-380.
[15]	李学会, 傅志军, 刘江, 董咚. 残疾认同量表的信度与效度检验[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2019, 25(4): 455-459.